D&D 5E Weighing in on 5e

[AbdulAlhazred]

Pre-4E D&D editions had fixed monster/player math. I.e. defenses did not scale with level, only attack bonuses. So there was no relative equivalency between monster and player advancement as you levelled up, at least not in the sense that 4E brought it. In 4E, you need to roll, say, 10 and up to hit on an attack and 5/10/15 and up on your d20 (before bonuses) to accomplish an easy/medium/hard DC skill ; why bother with changing the math on your sheet with +1 every two level and bonuses to attributes? The number you need on your d20 never changes anyway, so modifying your PC sheet as you level up with the fixed level-dependent bonuses is useless. Only choices of specialization matter because they change how your PC becomes better relative to the monster math.

But in an absolute sense PCs DO improve. At level 1 the goblin is a challenge to hit and your defenses are barely adequate to defend you against its attacks. Advance to level 5 and said goblin is no longer a big threat, but now you can take on a bugbear and have a good chance of winning. Remove advancing bonuses and you undermine that absolute progression. Now, there might be other ways to achieve it, but there's a good argument for the mechanics being simple and transparent.

One of the more annoying things about AD&D was that the progression wasn't all that transparent. Your AC WOULD improve, or at least it had better if you expect to survive. However you had to depend on either the whim of the dice or the whim of the DM for it to happen. A level 10 fighter in non-magical AC2 plate armor would be a sad puppy.

 

[delericho]

But in an absolute sense PCs DO improve. At level 1 the goblin is a challenge to hit and your defenses are barely adequate to defend you against its attacks. Advance to level 5 and said goblin is no longer a big threat, but now you can take on a bugbear and have a good chance of winning.

Yep. Things only remain static if you're always facing equal-level foes.

I'm in favour of reducing the number of ways bonuses can be accrued, but that's because of a desire for a simpler game, rather than to simply get rid of the increases. (It also would have the happy benefit of reducing the gap between the system-expert player and the casual player, which for me is a definite boon - I generally play in a mixed group.)

Likewise, I would advocate reducing the granularity of those changes in monsters - rather than going up by +1 every level or two, have them go up in meaty +5 chunks. Because I don't think players will really notice the difference between a Kobold at AC 13 vs a Goblin at AC 14, but they will notice the difference between a Kobold at AC 13 and an Ogre at AC 18. More minor differences between monsters are probably better handled using individual monster powers instead.

But in both cases, it's about an attempt to refine the existing system, not remove the escalating maths.

 

[UnknownAtThisTime]

I just wanted to chip in and say that I am glad none of you are designing 5e.

I agree.

Now, aahem, what it should really be like is ........

 

[JoeGKushner]

I'd like for some of the fans with their nose bent out of shape about the OGL to stop making false accusations of lying, even after they've been repeatedly called out for it, then lying low for awhile, then trying it yet again.

While I'm at it, I'd like a unicorn, too, since apparently I've got as great a shot at getting one.

Eh?

"Unfortunately, we will not have a data update ready for the D&D Insider tools in September. The process of integrating the new changes from Dark Sun and Essentials is taking a bit longer than we expected, and we plan to update the Character Builder in early October. We will continue to keep you informed of any changes to the schedule, and apologize for any inconvenience this may cause."

And that uh.. change was making the DDI an online only version. That was the old e-mail back from September last year unless I'm forgetting somethings which given the time from the "uh, we don't know how to program" as opposed to "we're rolling out an online version and discontinuing the program" letting people know months in advance, is well, in my opinion, lying.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yep. Things only remain static if you're always facing equal-level foes.

I'm in favour of reducing the number of ways bonuses can be accrued, but that's because of a desire for a simpler game, rather than to simply get rid of the increases. (It also would have the happy benefit of reducing the gap between the system-expert player and the casual player, which for me is a definite boon - I generally play in a mixed group.)

Likewise, I would advocate reducing the granularity of those changes in monsters - rather than going up by +1 every level or two, have them go up in meaty +5 chunks. Because I don't think players will really notice the difference between a Kobold at AC 13 vs a Goblin at AC 14, but they will notice the difference between a Kobold at AC 13 and an Ogre at AC 18. More minor differences between monsters are probably better handled using individual monster powers instead.

But in both cases, it's about an attempt to refine the existing system, not remove the escalating maths.

Well, I don't think I'd want huge jumps like that. I agree that small differences aren't very noticeable, but I would rather see greater variation of base numbers within a given level. So you have some monster that is heavily armored but has a poor reflex for instance. The 1-2 points of variation typical in existing monster designs simply doesn't cut it there.

 

[Dice4Hire]

Well, I don't think I'd want huge jumps like that. I agree that small differences aren't very noticeable, but I would rather see greater variation of base numbers within a given level. So you have some monster that is heavily armored but has a poor reflex for instance. The 1-2 points of variation typical in existing monster designs simply doesn't cut it there.

Well, with characters who can attack multiple defenses, having a large variation causes a large bonus to hit. Rogues are a prime example against brutes. The ability to hit reflex with a full weapon proficiency attack means they rarely miss on anything but a 2. If they had to go for AC all the time, they would miss a lot more.

 

[Dice4Hire]

I do think one area 4E does fall down is the fallacy of having all monsters the party meets nearly the same level, every door nearly the same d20 roll to get open if it is part of a skill challenge.

From level 1 to 30

Now it does not have to be this way, the DM could throw in a bunch of highly lower leveled creatures, or a higher one (and I have done this in 4E) but there is not a lot of support for this, and very few modules do this in any way.

To me, it ruins the sense of disbelief I had in most other editions. I want goblins to be low level nasties that can be ignored at a certain point. Not a 12 level spread in the MM. 3-4 is ok, for leaders, but I like monsters as more ranks of danger, stretching across 5 or so levels at max.

Luckily I can do this with monster choice as a DM but the core assumption is a bit offsetting to me.

 

[delericho]

Well, with characters who can attack multiple defenses, having a large variation causes a large bonus to hit. Rogues are a prime example against brutes. The ability to hit reflex with a full weapon proficiency attack means they rarely miss on anything but a 2. If they had to go for AC all the time, they would miss a lot more.

Aye, it's true.

Two possible solutions spring to mind:

- Situational weaknesses. The fast-moving, low-AC creature is really hard to hit, unless and until you can contrive some means to slow it down, whereupon it becomes easy to dispatch. This probably needs to be a bit more nuanced that just "throw an entange on it"! But merely allowing opponents to find attacks vs the weakest defence is probably a poor solution, since that's just too damn easy (and really not all that interesting).

- Make greater use of things like vulnerabilities. Rather than have attacks vs some defences having a better chance to get through, have different types of attacks do more damage. The most obvious example is fire damage vs ice creatures, of course, but why not expand it to, say, bludgeoning weapons vs skeletons? (Essentially, Damage Reduction in reverse.)

On the other hand, perhaps this is acceptable anyway. Characters generally should have a range of attacks hitting different defences - the game should actively discourage them putting all their eggs in one basket. And then, if a monster's 'good' defence was, say, 3 points better than their 'poor' defence then there is a bonus for canny players. I'm pretty okay with that. Where it goes wrong is if it's too easy - you can pick out the poor defence with the simplest of cues, or with a near-trivial dice roll.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Aye, it's true.

Two possible solutions spring to mind:

- Situational weaknesses. The fast-moving, low-AC creature is really hard to hit, unless and until you can contrive some means to slow it down, whereupon it becomes easy to dispatch. This probably needs to be a bit more nuanced that just "throw an entange on it"! But merely allowing opponents to find attacks vs the weakest defence is probably a poor solution, since that's just too damn easy (and really not all that interesting).

- Make greater use of things like vulnerabilities. Rather than have attacks vs some defences having a better chance to get through, have different types of attacks do more damage. The most obvious example is fire damage vs ice creatures, of course, but why not expand it to, say, bludgeoning weapons vs skeletons? (Essentially, Damage Reduction in reverse.)

On the other hand, perhaps this is acceptable anyway. Characters generally should have a range of attacks hitting different defences - the game should actively discourage them putting all their eggs in one basket. And then, if a monster's 'good' defence was, say, 3 points better than their 'poor' defence then there is a bonus for canny players. I'm pretty okay with that. Where it goes wrong is if it's too easy - you can pick out the poor defence with the simplest of cues, or with a near-trivial dice roll.

You could however do things like let a character that can observe for a period of time determine the strengths and weaknesses of an enemy. Make a strategic level of play for each class for that matter. Make Daily powers generally be more about strategy as well. I would drop a lot of combat mechanics but shift things around a bit so again strategy is as important as what passes for tactics in 4e. You hit someone with surprise and it is going to be bad for them, or are flanking, etc. Just make given situations a bit more decisive. Get rid of all the action types except standard, move, immediate interrupt, and free. Make OAs more of a defender thing in general. Just aim to cut back on all the fiddly little things that gum up combat. If you get the jump on someone, you can usually put a beat down on them, but likewise even a weaker enemy doing the same thing can be dangerous. I bet basically you can have 4e combat, with some tweaks that resolves almost as fast as old Basic. How many people will play 4e and be happy with it if combat took 15 to 30 minutes depending on the type of combat it is, with the big epic being doable in a couple hours if you want. Well, clearly it would be a slightly different beast than 4e. Sort of 4.5

 

[Grydan]

I do think one area 4E does fall down is the fallacy of having all monsters the party meets nearly the same level, every door nearly the same d20 roll to get open if it is part of a skill challenge.

From level 1 to 30

It's a common misconception (which I'm not accusing you of having ) that the skill DC for opening a locked door goes up as you level. It doesn't. Any given door has its own level of difficulty to open.

It's just that once you're level 20, locked doors of level 1-10 just aren't any more obstacle than unlocked ones, so you just treat them as if they weren't locked. A door of level 20 encountered by a party at level 1 is basically a wall with the promise of something interesting behind it if you come back later, rather than a door they should spend much time trying to open. The problem is, in my experience anyway, that if you put a door in, the party is convinced there's a way to get through it. If they can't force it, or pick the lock, there must be some magic, or a secret lever, or they have to knock and wait for it to be opened... I've seen people get stalled on what a DM put in as set-dressing, thinking there must be a way to get past.

Making my players roll skill checks they cannot fail (except on a 1) is a waste of my time and theirs.

Making my players roll skill checks they cannot pass is also a waste of time.

Now, it's perfectly reasonable when creating a place that you expect the players to spend a long time in, or to return to, to put in place doors that fall at the "can't possibly open right now" end. It's also reasonable to have doors that are a challenge now, but will be auto-successes later.

All of this also applies to other skill checks, of course.

Now it does not have to be this way, the DM could throw in a bunch of highly lower leveled creatures, or a higher one (and I have done this in 4E) but there is not a lot of support for this, and very few modules do this in any way.

Well, the reason there's not a lot of support for throwing in a bunch of highly lower levelled creatures in is that that's what minions are for.

Once a creature's so much lower than the party that they can't be missed, and can't hit the party, and even if they hit can't do enough damage to worry about... any reasonable party is basically going to ignore them in any fight that has real threats in it. If they're not going to actually fight the things, you may as well be treating them as a terrain feature rather than monsters.

Whereas if you instead make those creatures into minions that are within 2 or 3 levels of the party, you retain the overwhelming superiority of the PCs (one hit kills for everyone!), while making the creatures enough of a concern that the PCs might actually treat them as more than mobile terrain. (Well, if you use MM3 era minions, anyway. Earlier ones tend not to have enough going for them.)

To me, it ruins the sense of disbelief I had in most other editions. I want goblins to be low level nasties that can be ignored at a certain point. Not a 12 level spread in the MM. 3-4 is ok, for leaders, but I like monsters as more ranks of danger, stretching across 5 or so levels at max.

Luckily I can do this with monster choice as a DM but the core assumption is a bit offsetting to me.

Most goblins are nasties that can be ignored at a certain point. It's just those few exceptional ones that are significantly better than their brethren who pop up and surprise you. It's a useful tool to have: monsters the players think are set-dressing, but who turn out to actually be threats.